Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Diabetologia ; 66(8): 1481-1500, 2023 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37171501

RESUMEN

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Epidemiological studies have generated conflicting findings on the relationship between glucose-lowering medication use and cancer risk. Naturally occurring variation in genes encoding glucose-lowering drug targets can be used to investigate the effect of their pharmacological perturbation on cancer risk. METHODS: We developed genetic instruments for three glucose-lowering drug targets (peroxisome proliferator activated receptor γ [PPARG]; sulfonylurea receptor 1 [ATP binding cassette subfamily C member 8 (ABCC8)]; glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor [GLP1R]) using summary genetic association data from a genome-wide association study of type 2 diabetes in 148,726 cases and 965,732 controls in the Million Veteran Program. Genetic instruments were constructed using cis-acting genome-wide significant (p<5×10-8) SNPs permitted to be in weak linkage disequilibrium (r2<0.20). Summary genetic association estimates for these SNPs were obtained from genome-wide association study (GWAS) consortia for the following cancers: breast (122,977 cases, 105,974 controls); colorectal (58,221 cases, 67,694 controls); prostate (79,148 cases, 61,106 controls); and overall (i.e. site-combined) cancer (27,483 cases, 372,016 controls). Inverse-variance weighted random-effects models adjusting for linkage disequilibrium were employed to estimate causal associations between genetically proxied drug target perturbation and cancer risk. Co-localisation analysis was employed to examine robustness of findings to violations of Mendelian randomisation (MR) assumptions. A Bonferroni correction was employed as a heuristic to define associations from MR analyses as 'strong' and 'weak' evidence. RESULTS: In MR analysis, genetically proxied PPARG perturbation was weakly associated with higher risk of prostate cancer (for PPARG perturbation equivalent to a 1 unit decrease in inverse rank normal transformed HbA1c: OR 1.75 [95% CI 1.07, 2.85], p=0.02). In histological subtype-stratified analyses, genetically proxied PPARG perturbation was weakly associated with lower risk of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (OR 0.57 [95% CI 0.38, 0.85], p=6.45×10-3). In co-localisation analysis, however, there was little evidence of shared causal variants for type 2 diabetes liability and cancer endpoints in the PPARG locus, although these analyses were likely underpowered. There was little evidence to support associations between genetically proxied PPARG perturbation and colorectal or overall cancer risk or between genetically proxied ABCC8 or GLP1R perturbation with risk across cancer endpoints. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Our drug target MR analyses did not find consistent evidence to support an association of genetically proxied PPARG, ABCC8 or GLP1R perturbation with breast, colorectal, prostate or overall cancer risk. Further evaluation of these drug targets using alternative molecular epidemiological approaches may help to further corroborate the findings presented in this analysis. DATA AVAILABILITY: Summary genetic association data for select cancer endpoints were obtained from the public domain: breast cancer ( https://bcac.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/bcacdata/ ); and overall prostate cancer ( http://practical.icr.ac.uk/blog/ ). Summary genetic association data for colorectal cancer can be accessed by contacting GECCO (kafdem at fredhutch.org). Summary genetic association data on advanced prostate cancer can be accessed by contacting PRACTICAL (practical at icr.ac.uk). Summary genetic association data on type 2 diabetes from Vujkovic et al (Nat Genet, 2020) can be accessed through dbGAP under accession number phs001672.v3.p1 (pha004945.1 refers to the European-specific summary statistics). UK Biobank data can be accessed by registering with UK Biobank and completing the registration form in the Access Management System (AMS) ( https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/apply-for-access ).


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/genética , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicaciones , Factores de Riesgo , Glucosa , Estudio de Asociación del Genoma Completo , PPAR gamma/genética , Neoplasias de la Mama/genética , Neoplasias de la Próstata/complicaciones , Neoplasias Colorrectales/genética , Análisis de la Aleatorización Mendeliana , Polimorfismo de Nucleótido Simple/genética
2.
BMC Med ; 20(1): 41, 2022 02 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35105367

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: We aimed to map and describe the current state of Mendelian randomization (MR) literature on cancer risk and to identify associations supported by robust evidence. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Scopus up to 06/10/2020 for MR studies investigating the association of any genetically predicted risk factor with cancer risk. We categorized the reported associations based on a priori designed levels of evidence supporting a causal association into four categories, namely robust, probable, suggestive, and insufficient, based on the significance and concordance of the main MR analysis results and at least one of the MR-Egger, weighed median, MRPRESSO, and multivariable MR analyses. Associations not presenting any of the aforementioned sensitivity analyses were not graded. RESULTS: We included 190 publications reporting on 4667 MR analyses. Most analyses (3200; 68.6%) were not accompanied by any of the assessed sensitivity analyses. Of the 1467 evaluable analyses, 87 (5.9%) were supported by robust, 275 (18.7%) by probable, and 89 (6.1%) by suggestive evidence. The most prominent robust associations were observed for anthropometric indices with risk of breast, kidney, and endometrial cancers; circulating telomere length with risk of kidney, lung, osteosarcoma, skin, thyroid, and hematological cancers; sex steroid hormones and risk of breast and endometrial cancer; and lipids with risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large amount of research on genetically predicted risk factors for cancer risk, limited associations are supported by robust evidence for causality. Most associations did not present a MR sensitivity analysis and were thus non-evaluable. Future research should focus on more thorough assessment of sensitivity MR analyses and on more transparent reporting.


Asunto(s)
Análisis de la Aleatorización Mendeliana , Neoplasias Ováricas , Causalidad , Estudio de Asociación del Genoma Completo , Humanos , Polimorfismo de Nucleótido Simple , Factores de Riesgo
3.
Metabolites ; 11(11)2021 Oct 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34822385

RESUMEN

Excess body weight is thought to increase the risk of aggressive prostate cancer (PCa), although the biological mechanism is currently unclear. Body fatness is positively associated with a diminished cellular response to insulin and biomarkers of insulin signalling have been positively associated with PCa risk. We carried out a two-pronged systematic review of (a) the effect of reducing body fatness on insulin biomarker levels and (b) the effect of insulin biomarkers on PCa risk, to determine whether a reduction in body fatness could reduce PCa risk via effects on the insulin signalling pathway. We identified seven eligible randomised controlled trials of interventions designed to reduce body fatness which measured insulin biomarkers as an outcome, and six eligible prospective observational studies of insulin biomarkers and PCa risk. We found some evidence that a reduction in body fatness improved insulin sensitivity although our confidence in this evidence was low based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations). We were unable to reach any conclusions on the effect of insulin sensitivity on PCa risk from the few studies included in our systematic review. A reduction in body fatness may reduce PCa risk via insulin signalling, but more high-quality evidence is needed before any conclusions can be reached regarding PCa.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA